News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut may be pushed to 2022 by slow FAA reviews
In a rare sign of material progress, SpaceX and the FAA have finally released what is known as a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the company’s South Texas Starship launch plans.
Set to be the largest and most powerful rocket in spaceflight history when it first begins orbital launches, the process of acquiring permission to launch Starship and its Super Heavy booster out of the wetlands of the South Texas coast was never going to be easy. The Boca Chica site SpaceX ultimately settled on for its first private launch facilities – initially meant for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but later dedicated to BFR (now Starship) – is simultaneously surrounded by sensitive coastal habitats populated by several threatened or endangered species and situated mere miles as the crow flies from a city whose temporary population oscillates from a few thousand to tens of thousands.
Reception and analysis of the draft and its timing have been mixed. On one hand, SpaceX’s draft EA – completed with oversight from the FAA and help from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – gives a number of reasons for optimism. In a sign that SpaceX is taking a pragmatic approach to the inevitable environmental review and launch license approval hurdles standing in front of orbital South Texas Starship launches, the company has actually pursued what is known as a “programmatic environmental assessment” (PEA).
Most importantly, that means that SpaceX’s Starbase PEA – if approved – will be more like a foundation or stepping stone that should make it easier to start small and methodically expand the scope and nature of the company’s plans for Boca Chica. Along those lines, as part of Starbase’s first dedicated environmental assessment, SpaceX has proposed a maximum of 23 flight operations annually while Starship is still in the development phase, including up to 20 suborbital Starship test flights and 3 orbital launches (or Super Heavy hops). Once SpaceX has worked out enough kinks for slightly more confident Starship operations, the company would enter an “operational phase” that would allow for as many as five suborbital Starship launches and five orbital Starship launches, as well as ship and booster landings back on land after all 10 possible launches.
In other words, SpaceX’s initial draft PEA is extremely conservative, requesting permission for what amounts to a bare minimum concept of operations for orbital Starship launches. At a maximum of 3-5 orbital launches per year, a PEA and subsequent launch license approved as-is would likely give SpaceX just enough slack to perform basic Earth orbit launches and no more than one or two orbital refilling tests per year. However, as an example, a five-launch maximum would almost entirely prevent SpaceX from launching Starship to Mars, the Moon, and maybe even high-energy Earth orbits without using all of its annual launch allotments on a single mission.
Perhaps most importantly, the draft PEA as proposed would unequivocally prevent SpaceX from performing the NASA Human Lander System (HLS) Moon landings it received an almost $3 billion contract to complete. Each HLS Starship Moon landing is expected to require anywhere from 10-16 launches to deliver a depot ship, HLS lander, and ~1200 tons of propellant to orbit. However, in terms of SpaceX’s prospects of developing Starship as quickly as possible, that’s actually a good thing. Above all else, SpaceX’s slimmed-down draft PEA should be far easier for the FAA to approve than a PEA pursuing permission for Starship’s ultimate ambitions – dozens to hundreds of launches annually – from the beginning. In theory, with this barebones PEA approved, SpaceX would then be able to build off the foundation with additional environmental assessments – like, for example, of expanding Starship’s maximum launch cadence.
Of course, SpaceX first needs the FAA turn this first draft PEA into a favorable environmental assessment (not a guarantee) before any of the above starts to matter. Based on the content of the draft itself and associated appendixes, SpaceX appears to have a decent shot at receiving a “finding of no significant impact (FONSI)” or “mitigated FONSI” determination. However, SpaceX began the process of creating that draft as far back as mid-2020, followed by an FAA announcement in November 2020. The implication is that the FAA managed to drag out a draft release process that some have estimated should have taken 3-4 months into an arduous 10-15 month ordeal.
Combined with the uphill battle it’s starting to look like SpaceX will have to wage for an orbital Starship launch license in South Texas, it’s looking increasingly likely that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase will be technically ready for orbital launch tests well before the FAA is ready to approve or license them. Barring delays, the public now has until mid-October to read and comment on SpaceX’s draft PEA, after which the FAA and SpaceX will review those comments and hopefully turn the draft into a completed review. Even if the FAA were to somehow take just two months to return a best-case FONSI, clearing Starbase of environmental launch hurdles, it’s hard to imagine that the agency could then turn around and approve an orbital Starship launch license – or even a one-off experimental permit – in the last few weeks of 2021.
Ultimately, that means that nothing short of a minor miracle is likely to prevent the FAA’s environmental review and licensing delays from directly delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut. There is at least a chance that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase’s orbital launch site wont be ready for orbital launches by the end of the year, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that all three won’t be proof tested, qualified, and ready for action just a month or two from now. For the time being, we’ll just have to wait and see where the cards fall.
News
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
The regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
The Dutch vehicle authority RDW responded to Tesla’s recent updates about its efforts to bring Full Self-Driving (Supervised) in Europe, confirming that February 2026 remains the target month for Tesla to demonstrate regulatory compliance.
While acknowledging the tentative schedule with Tesla, the regulator emphasized that safety, not public pressure, will decide whether FSD receives authorization for use in Europe.
RDW confirms 2026 target, warns Feb 2026 timeline is not guaranteed
In its response, which was posted on its official website, the RDW clarified that it does not disclose details about ongoing manufacturer applications due to competitive sensitivity. However, the agency confirmed that both parties have agreed on a February 2026 window during which Tesla is expected to show that FSD (Supervised) can meet required safety and compliance standards. Whether Tesla can satisfy those conditions within the timeline “remains to be seen,” RDW added.
RDW also directly addressed Tesla’s social media request encouraging drivers to contact the regulator to express support. While thanking those who already reached out, RDW asked the public to stop contacting them, noting these messages burden customer-service resources and have no influence on the approval process.
“In the message on X, Tesla calls on Tesla drivers to thank the RDW and to express their enthusiasm about this planning to us by contacting us. We thank everyone who has already done so, and would like to ask everyone not to contact us about this. It takes up unnecessary time for our customer service. Moreover, this will have no influence on whether or not the planning is met,” the RDW wrote.
The RDW shares insights on EU approval requirements
The RDW further outlined how new technology enters the European market when no existing legislation directly covers it. Under EU Regulation 2018/858, a manufacturer may seek an exemption for unregulated features such as advanced driver assistance systems. The process requires a Member State, in this case the Netherlands, to submit a formal request to the European Commission on the manufacturer’s behalf.
Approval then moves to a committee vote. A majority in favor would grant EU-wide authorization, allowing the technology across all Member States. If the vote fails, the exemption is valid only within the Netherlands, and individual countries must decide whether to accept it independently.
Before any exemption request can be filed, Tesla must complete a comprehensive type-approval process with the RDW, including controlled on-road testing. Provided that FSD Supervised passes these regulatory evaluations, the exemption could be submitted for broader EU consideration.
News
Tesla says Europe could finally get FSD in 2026, and Dutch regulator RDW is key
As per Tesla, a Dutch regulatory exemption targeted for February 2026 could very well be the key gateway for a Europe-wide rollout of FSD.
Tesla has shared its most detailed timeline yet for bringing Full Self-Driving (Supervised) to Europe. The electric vehicle maker posted its update through the official X account of Tesla Europe & Middle East.
As per Tesla, a Dutch regulatory exemption targeted for February 2026 could very well be the key gateway for a Europe-wide rollout of FSD.
Tesla pushes for EU approval
Tesla stated that it has spent more than 12 months working directly with European authorities and delivering FSD demonstrations to regulators in several EU member state. Tesla highlighted a number of its efforts for FSD’s release in Europe, such as safety documentation for FSD, which is now included in its latest public Safety Report, and over 1 million kilometers of internal testing conducted on EU roads across 17 countries.
To unlock approval, Tesla is relying on the Netherlands’ approval authority RDW. The process requires proving compliance with UN-R-171 for driver-assist systems while also filing Article 39 exemptions for behaviors that remain unregulated in Europe, such as hands-off system-initiated lane changes and Level 2 operation on roads that are not fully covered by current rules. Tesla argued that these functions cannot be retrofitted or adjusted into existing frameworks without compromising safety and performance.
“Some of these regulations are outdated and rules-based, which makes FSD illegal in its current form. Changing FSD to be compliant with these rules would make it unsafe and unusable in many cases. While we have changed FSD to be maximally compliant where it is logical and reasonable, we won’t sacrifice the safety of a proven system or materially deteriorate customer usability,” Tesla wrote in its post.
Tesla targets February 2026 approval
According to Tesla, real-world safety data alone has not been considered sufficient by EU regulators, prompting the company to gather evidence to get exemptions on a specific rule-by-rule basis. RDW has reportedly committed to issuing a Netherlands National approval in February 2026, which could pave the way for other EU countries to recognize the exemption and possibly authorize local deployment of FSD.
“Currently, RDW has committed to granting Netherlands National approval in February 2026. Please contact them via link below to express your excitement & thank them for making this happen as soon as possible. Upon NL National approval, other EU countries can immediately recognize the exemption and also allow rollout within their country. Then we will bring it to a TCMV vote for official EU-wide approval. We’re excited to bring FSD to our owners in Europe soon!” Tesla wrote in its post.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) has landed an elusive “must own” status from Wall Street firm Melius, according to a new note released early this week.
Analyst Rob Wertheimer said Tesla will lead the charge in world-changing tech, given the company’s focus on self-driving, autonomy, and Robotaxi. In a note to investors, Wertheimer said “the world is about to change, dramatically,” because of the advent of self-driving cars.
He looks at the industry and sees many potential players, but the firm says there will only be one true winner:
“Our point is not that Tesla is at risk, it’s that everybody else is.”
The major argument is that autonomy is nearing a tipping point where years of chipping away at the software and data needed to develop a sound, safe, and effective form of autonomous driving technology turn into an avalanche of progress.
Wertheimer believes autonomy is a $7 trillion sector,” and in the coming years, investors will see “hundreds of billions in value shift to Tesla.”
A lot of the major growth has to do with the all-too-common “butts in seats” strategy, as Wertheimer believes that only a fraction of people in the United States have ridden in a self-driving car. In Tesla’s regard, only “tens of thousands” have tried Tesla’s latest Full Self-Driving (Supervised) version, which is v14.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2 – Full Review, the Good and the Bad
When it reaches a widespread rollout and more people are able to experience Tesla Full Self-Driving v14, he believes “it will shock most people.”
Citing things like Tesla’s massive data pool from its vehicles, as well as its shift to end-to-end neural nets in 2021 and 2022, as well as the upcoming AI5 chip, which will be put into a handful of vehicles next year, but will reach a wider rollout in 2027, Melius believes many investors are not aware of the pace of advancement in self-driving.
Tesla’s lead in its self-driving efforts is expanding, Wertheimer says. The company is making strategic choices on everything from hardware to software, manufacturing, and overall vehicle design. He says Tesla has left legacy automakers struggling to keep pace as they still rely on outdated architectures and fragmented supplier systems.
Tesla shares are up over 6 percent at 10:40 a.m. on the East Coast, trading at around $416.
Dutch regulator RDW confirms Tesla FSD February 2026 target
Tesla says Europe could finally get FSD in 2026, and Dutch regulator RDW is key
